E 713 

.081 
Copy 1 




Democracy and Imperialism 



ADDRESS 



by the 



Hon.Thomas Mott Osborne 



delivered at the 



Tenth Annual Meeting 



of 



THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 
BOSTON 

November 30, 190S 



Press of the Cambridge Chronicle 
Cambridge, Mass. 



y 



\ 



Democracy and Imperialism 
ADDRESS 

by the 

Hon Thomas Mott Osborne 

delivered at the 
Tenth Annual Meeting 

o( 

THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST LEAGUE 
BOSTON 

November 30, 1908 



FreS"! of the Cambridge Chronicle 
Cambridge, Mass. 



Li 1 3 
. O §1 



Gift 



Democracy and Imperialism 

On Ncivfuibcr l-Uh there appeared the following letter in 
the Springtield ]\opublican: 

To the Editor of the Kepublioan: — 

AVith the crushing defeat of Bryan at the 
late election, did it not incorporate, also, an 
equal defeat to anti-imperialism^ Sui-ely 
there is nothing in evidence exhibiting a 
shadow of strength in the opposition of anti- 
imperialists to Taft. Their feeble influence 
hci-ctoforc seems to have ebbed toward that 
obli^^on "whence no traveler ever re- 
tuiTied."' It is well their mission has ended, 
and their un-Americanism has become 
nothingness. Many schemes of disturbance 
have appeared and disappeared at many 
periods in the past — anti-imperialism has 
had its black blot in the history of our 
country, and lies dead in the graveyard of 
dead isms and issues — dead, without leaving 
a mark of influence. 

L. B. Merriam. 
Springfield, NoA^ember 13, 1908. 

The logic of this interesting epistle is no less curious than 
its literary composition. It is, of course, open to anyone to 
draw whatever conclusions he likes from the late election; and 
it has long been n favorite game with politicians to read into 
election returns anything whatever that seems to favor their 
own particular interests; but it would puzzle the average per- 
son to discover any particular defeat of anti-imperialism that 
has occurred this year. So far as the ordinary observer can 
see, no issue of the kind was made in the providential cam- 
paign; — and perhaps some of us think that ^Mt. Br^'an made a 
ferious mistake thereby, and that ho would have been far 
stronger before the country if ho had not to all appearances 
lost interest in the subject upon which he once made a very 
great speech — perhaps the finest he ever delivered, — that at 



liidiaiiapulis in I'JUU. But whether or uot thLs last thing- be 
I rue, it is certainly transparently obvious that uot in this last 
campaign, nor ever in any campaign, have the people of the 
L'nited States been able fairly to express their judgment on 
the subject of imperialism, in 1900, while it was made a 
matter of debate, this question was so compiii-ated with the free 
silver issue, and that of ^Ir. Bryan's personality, that there 
could be tio genuine expression of judgment upon it. In 1904: 
the subject was ignored; as it was again in 1908. How anti- 
imperialism can bo defeated, when it has never been an issue, 
we must leave !Mr. Merriam to explain. 

The truth is, of course, that it is impossible to defeat a moral 
issue. Through stupidity or self-interest we may for a time 
fail to grasp the ethical principles involved; through the faith- 
lessness or indifference of its temporary guardians the affirma- 
tive side may suffer eclipse for the moment, or may even be 
defeated in one form only to reappear in another; but if the 
issue be a genuine moral one — if the affirmative side be founded 
on the everlasting foundations of righteousness, you can no 
more kill it than you can kill the mathematical truth that two 
and two make lour. 

Consider how many times in our history the anti-slavery issue 
was declared killed. Time and time again, as compromise after 
compromise was brought about, — as one victory of the slavery 
interest and its northern allies succeeded another, that great 
moral issue was buried with considerable pomp and circimi- 
t^^tance, and its funeral oration preached in market-place and 
senate amid great public rejoicings. Yet, even before these 
proceedings were well imder Avay, there again arose the issue, 
still alive and troublesome, clamoring indeed for death (for 
«ucli issues do not willingly live — it is only the folly of man 
that prolongs their lives), but seeking the only dissolution 
})ossible- that brouiilit about hy ixildly facing the trtith and 
doing tlie right. 

Ami lMif)prialism, therefore, is still with us. we cannot get 
rid iif it; it will ri-maiu with us — cannot indeed be separated 
from us -until those in whose power it lies shall deliver U3 
fioiii the l)(»(ly of this death. 

'ilie more one reHect> upon the true character and mission of 
the United Stales of .\nieiica, the more clear the folly and 
pervpi-sity of our imperialist experiment becomes; and the 
more wrelche<lly .-u])erlicial setMUS the reasoning by which it is 
defended, l.et us consider the question; taking the Philip- 
piiicj fur oiir te.xt. 



The main facts arc simple enough: In the course of the con- 
test with Spain, growing out of her colonial troubles in Cuba, 
our ships of war destroyed the Spanish fleet in the harbor of 
^Innila, tlni> bringing to an end the tottering Spanisli power in 
the J'hilippincs, and proving for the hundredth time that in war 
outlying colonies are a source of great weakness. 

The Filipinos, like the Cubans, had long been restless and 
discontented under Spanish misrule. Something in the nature 
of a native government (just how much is disputed) had grown 
up as Spain's hold on the Islands had relaxed. When the time 
came to make a treaty of peace between the United States and 
Spain, instead of recognizing the rights of the Filipinos to be 
free, as we did in the case of the inhabitants of Cuba, we 
bought the Islands of Spain for $20,000,000, thus paying, as 
was estimated at the time, about fifty cents apiece for the in- 
habitants. AVe assumed possession of the Islands and have held 
them e^er since by force of arms. 

But the treaty under which the United States assumed 
ownership of the Philippines was not confinned without opposi- 
tion; it was bitterly opposed by representatives of both parties; 
and only by the exertion of all the pressure of the govern- 
ment did the tre*aty pass the senate by just the required 
number of votes. A sliift of one vote would have prevented 
our embarking on this venture of imperialism; and since that 
time, as has been stated, the country has never had a fair 
chance to pass its verdict upon the policy which was then forced 
upon it. 

We Anti-Imperialists make the broiad assertion that this 
countni', being as it is a democracy, has no business to own 
subject colonies. AVhat are the arguments which we meet? 

Fii-st: That the battle of ^Manila created a situation from 
which we could not afterAvards escape. That we do not want 
the Islands, but cannot lot them go. 

!N'ever mind whether the details used to bolster up this 
argniment l>e correct or not; whether or not the Filipinos fired 
first on our soldiers on .some important occasion; whether 
Agninaldo was a patriot or a mere disturber; is it broadly true 
that there ever was or could be a situation in which we were 
powerless to set the Islands free? The question is almost too 
sillv to be answered with a straiaht face. 

Suppose you live on a lonely farm in the suburb?, and a gang 
of toughs come and take possession of it; feast on your pro- 
vision':, and make free with your hard-earned property; and 
fuppose some day a squad of policemen makes its appearance 
8^-id driA-es awav the niflians; what would your feelings be if 



the polieeineii should in turn proceed to settle themselves as 
possessors of the property, alleging that they couldn't go away 
because a situation had beeu created that made it necessary for 
them tu continue in possession? 

In the midst of our Kevolutionary struggle with Great 
Britain, France came to our assistance. Suppose after the 
Battle of Yorktown, DeGrasse, Kochambeau and Lafayette had 
landed enough men to cow our ancestors into submission; and 
then, thrusting Washington aside, had cooly assumed sover- 
eignty, alleging that a situation had been created that made it 
necessary to continue in possession. As a matter of fact, did 
France find any difficulty whatever in handling the situation in 
17S1, according to the dictates of decency and hunor? Why 
should we have found it so difficult in 1898? 

Had we so desired, there was absolutely nothing to prevent 
our leaving the Islands to themselves — to the people to whom 
they belonged. There is no inherent difficulty today. The 
difficulties which have been used as a reason are those which 
we ourselves created; and nothing is easier than to create an 
obstacle as an excuse for following our own inclination. Let 
us be frank: We are keeping the Islands not because we can- 
not come away, but because we either do not want to come 
away, or think, for some reason, we ought not to do so. The 
former would arise from motives of self-interest; the latter 
from a sense of obligation to the Filipinos. 

'i'liis brings us to the second argument: We must continue 
our Philippines adventure for the sake of what wc can get out 
of it. 

'I'liere was a time when it was recognized that mere acreage 
iiiaiic the greatness of ;i nation: Tliat to be big was to be 
.-trong and mighty. Japan's victory over Russia ought to dispel 
that time-worn fallacy for at least the present generation, and 
it would not today be complimentary to a man's reasoning 
power to charge him with holding such an opinion; but the 
iiias? of tlie jK'oplc never sui-rcnders ]n'econcoived opinions 
merely because they iiiv<il\(' l»iid logic. Such fallacies die 
slowly; and there is such an ii])peal to the imagination in vast 
stretches of the same color upon the map of the world, that the 
idea fastens itself upon us every time we endeavor to shake it 
off. But surely we have got beyond the necessity of treating 
such an idea as a serious argimient with intelligent people. 
In extent, tlie Philippines add nothing to our dignity as a 
nation; in case of war they would be a weakness as they were 
to Spain; they have no common ground with us of race, 
language, religious or political ideals. As an addition to our 



tenitury they are a pure incumbrance. 

But there ai'fe those who would keep the Islands because of 
their wealth; because it would be an advantage to us to 
"develop" theiu. Jveduced to it^ simplest tenns, this is the 
argument of the slave-driver who worked his "nigor" for the 
benefit of his own pocket. International morality doeo not exist 
for such people. Deaf to the teachings uf histoi-y, they tliink 
only o£ the possibility of personal pecuuian' advantage. The 
one and only bit of ethical advice which they imderetand or 
esteem is that of lago: "Put money in thy pui-se!" 

Yet nothing is more certain than the ultimate failure of all 
schemes to work colonies for the financial benefit of the mother- 
countiy; or dependencies for the advantage of the master- 
nation. Individuals may grow fat with plunder, but, as a whole, 
neither country nor colony thrives. 

Englnnd has, first and last, lavished large sums upon India — 
not counting the valuable lives she has sacrificed; it has been 
manifestly a losing game for her. Nor has the burden of im- 
perialism fallen alone upon England, for there seems to be little 
if any doubt that in India itself the average wealth of the 
inhabitants has seriously decreased since careful statistics began 
to be taken ; and that the people are steadily getting po(|i'er and 
poorer. 

Where selfishness rules, the situation is far worse; the 
greater the amount of wealth to be exploited and the easier it 
is to be gained, the worse for both countries. Look at the 
commanding position of Spain in the sixteenth century and 
her rapid decadence. Students of history agree that the chief 
cause thereof was the riches poured into her lap from the 
Xew "World. If the love of money is the root of all evil, it ^» 
unearned wealth that is the Devil's favorite and most dangerous 
play-thing. If we are to keep the Philippines, it is greatly to 
be hoped that the riches of the Islands remain hard for us to 
get, and small in amount: and if it continues to be a serious 
losing venture in a commercial sense — so much the better! We 
may the sooner behold the light! 

To keep the Islands for the mere sake of increasing our 
territory is silly; to keep them for the purpose of robbing them 
of their wealth is wicked. There remains, however, one other^ 
consideration along this line; for there is wealth in the Philip- 
pines which may be secured without robbery, — the wealth that 
comes from honest, legitimate trade. 

If there were time, this point would be worthy of develop- 
ment at length; but I must simply point out that the wealth of 
commerce — the honest wealth that comes to both sides through 



the natural exchange of commodities — can be just as well, and 
indeed far better, carried on between friends as between 
master and subject. When Massachusetts was an unwilling de- 
pendency of England, she refused to trade with the mother- 
country; when the United States was at war with England in 
1814, Massachusetts almost severed the union rather than give 
up her trade with the old enemy. You cannot gain or secure 
the blessings of trade by issuing orders to dependencies, or even 
by treaties; for trade is done between individuals for the 
benefit of themselves as individuals; and you cannot force in- 
dividuals to trade where they do not wish to. Trade requires a 
Ftate of mind, and it will be far better between the United 
States and the Philippines if the latter are set free, than if they 
»re unwillingly held; especially if our absurd tariff wall were 
broken down so as to allow of natural and free interchange of 
commodities. At present we hold fast the Islands and erect a 
barrier to obstruct trade; could anything be more hopelessly 
futile and ridiculous as a business proposition? 

Xext we come to the arguments based upon nobler grounds 
— the welfare of the Filipinos; and the point is urged that we 
must maintain our rule over the Islands because the inhabitants 
are unable to uphold a government of their own. If we should 
withdraw, anarchy would ensue. 

The first answer to this argument is that we have no right to 
as&ume anything of the kind; the second is that even anarchy 
is to be preferred to tyranny. I confess my own conception of 
the principles of democracy is such that, if the people of any 
land prefer anarchy to any form of established government, I 
say, by all means let them have it; perhaps it is a stage in their 
evolution which is necessary — just as children have to pass 
through a period of teething — whether or no. 

Moreover, let us not forget that what may appear anarchy to 
prople across the ocean may not seem the thing at all at close 
quarters. During our Civil War, Europe saw the great Ameri- 
can Republic involved in hopeless anarchy and confusion — 
apparently going down in ruins; and it was seriously proposed 
to intorforo and stop such unscomly breach of the world's peace. 
Yet we know now, and the wisest knew at the time, that that 
preat conflict was necessary to preserve the Union; that it was 
not anarchy that was going on, but the relaying of the founda- 
tions of democracy. 

So tlie nnnrchy argument fails, whetlier looked at from the 
historical or the ethical point of view. As an historical fact, 
what we mean by anarchy in such a case — serious social con- 
fnfion — ha^i been again and again the outward evidence of deep- 



seated movcDicnts, which result in the foriiiuhuioii of some 
system of government best fitted for the time and circum- 
stances. IS^ever yet in the world's history has one nation been 
ultimately successful in forcing upon another its own civiliza- 
tion and ideals in order to prevent anarchy. We can warp, 
distort or destroy a tree, or we can assist in creating favorable 
conditions for its growth and development, hvt we cunnot 
make it grow. The principle of life is in the tree — and in the 
free elements about it — in the sunshine and the air; we can 
only assist the processes of nature, we cannot substitute our 
own. 

The Philippines arc entitled to their own form of develop- 
ment, — be it apparent anarchy or manifest progress; Japan 
has shown what freedom from outside interference can do when 
a nation has within itself the germ of spontaneous and rapid 
growth. Perhaps the Filipino has the same God-like faculty. 
Let us beware how we assume that he has it not; and warp, 
distort or destroy the purposes of God. 

ISText we arc told that we must hold the Islands to prevent 
their being seized upon by some other power — Great Britain, 
Germany or Japan. 

This argument is no less flimsy than the last. One might 
begin by hazarding the suggestion that if it is a question of the 
Filipinos being held in subjection by some one, perhaps the 
inhabitants might prefer to choose their own guardian; possibly 
they would gain by the rule of Japan or Great Britain rather 
than "benevolent assimilation" by the United States. Whj 
should we assume that our own particular rule is so necessary 
to the Philippines? Has it not borne bitter fruit already? Hai 
it escaped violence and blood-shed? Does it satisfy the people 
of the Islands? Have we been so successful in perfecting the 
details of our own form of government that we are justified in 
deciding upon those for other people? And if these questions 
are all answered satisfactorily, there still remains the fact that 
nothing could be simpler than to take the Philippines imdcr our 
protection and say to every nation in the world: "Hands off!" 
It would be as easy to protect the Islands in the character of a 
generous and unselfish friend as in that of an imperious over- 
lord, and perhaps easier. Our attitude toward Cuba convicta 
us of ridiculous inconsistency out of hand.* 

*The "neutralization" of the Philippines is, of course, 
to be preferi-od to any protectorate; a guarantee by all the 
powers that the Islands will be let alone; — allowed to develop 
naturally, a? Japan has developed. 



Xext comes the argument that it is our duty to civilize aud 
educate the iuhabitants of the Islands, with or without the im- 
plied admission that they are to be set free some time or other. 

If true civilization, if the true education of a people con- 
sists in material things, in good roads, fine bridges, uniformed 
police, all those wonderful evidences of administrative 
efticiency, such as are to be seen in India, for example, then I 
grant that it can probably be produced in the Philippines 
under our rule much quicker than by home rule, A veneer 
of civilization under imperialism is comparatively easy to pro- 
duce,- — and there are no sights more impressive or supei-ficially 
alluring than the relics of Roman imperialism of old, or of 
Britisli imperialism of today; but was not that the very kind 
of civilization which our ancestors spurned, when they threw 
away the comforts and refinements of English soverei^ty? 
Education of a sort can be forced wherever you have the 
power — there are no places in the world so offensively and 
tragically clean as your prisons; but is that a kind of education 
we demand for our own children? or would accept even at 
the point of the bayonet? 

"What business have we to go to the other side of the globe, 
to a land where, by accident, we have the power, and say: 
"These <ire our ideas of what is good for you ; and we propose to 
civilize and educate you according to these ideas? It makes no 
difFerence what you want or don't want, what you like or dis- 
like, we propose to decide for you. You must submit; 
because we are stronger than you and can beat you, and if 
necessary, will beat you into submission.'* 

England has been trying this sort of thing in India for over 
a hundred years; and doing it much better (for reasons to be 
mentioned later) than we can ever hope to do it. Is it a 
success? (Jf-rtainly wonderful administrative efficiency has 
been shown there; as a great London paper has recently said, 
and said truly: 

"Wf have made life and property secure; we have 
administered j\istice to all men; we have spread the benefits 
of education far and wide; we liave allowed freedom of speech 
and freedom of the press; we have respected religion and re- 
ligious prejudice with care; we have upheld a standard of 
ftcru])ulous purity and honesty in public nfTairs; we have thrown 
open to the utmost possible extent the service of India to the 
Indians; we have run tlie road and bridged the river: above 
all. perliaps, wp have made men of million? of down-trodden 



serfs; we have been the immediate cause that the native of 
India has come to respect himself.'' 

All this have Englishmen done for India, and what is the 
result? Are they beloved by the people of India? Is the 
English rule accepted with gratitude for all its splendid un- 
selfish work — for all the human lives and treasure expended 
upon it? Eead your newspapers. India is seething with discon 
tent; the Viceroy has recently had to abandon his trip of in- 
spection and has returned under a heavy guard to Calcutta; in 
the diffei-ent provinces bombs are being hurled at the chief 
officials, and murders are becoming alarmingly frequent; 
native newspapers are being suspended and suppressed. On all 
sides it is agreed that never since the Great Mutiny has the 
situation been so serious. Yet — irony of fate! — the Secretary 
of State for India, in the British Cabinet, is John Morley ! 

Listen again to the Simla correspondent of the Daily 
Telegraph : 

"How comes it, many will say, that with an administration 
framed upon such excellent lines, there is the opportimity for 
even malevolent criticism to obtain such publicity in the penin- 
sula. To this there is one sufficient answer, '^o government 
has ever saved itself merely by its own virtue and probity. 
Alexander the Just met the same fate as Heliogabulus, his pre- 
decessor, and Maximin, his successor; and the very liberality 
with which we have pei-mitted the free publication and dis- 
cussion of political heresies has encouraged a thousand to 
preach disobedience where, under the sterner code of Rome, 
even one m.ight have hesitated to betray his secret aspirations. 
The truest commentary upon our policy in India was written a 
hundred years ago by the only European to whom it has ever 
been given to understand the inmost soul of the native of India. 
W.hat is, and must remain for us, a sealed book, so far as many 
of its chapters are concerned, was read by the Abbe EKiboia 
from cover to cover, and his final estimate of the necessary rela- 
tions between the English and the Indian is as true today aa 
when it was written. Of that estimate the kernel is contained 
in the following sentence: 'Under the supremacy of the 
Brahmins the people of India hated their government, while 
they cherished and respected their rulers; under the supremacy 
of Europeans they hate and despise their rulers from the bottom 
of their hearts, while they cherish and respect their government. 
*****-!? I venture to predict that the British will 
attempt in vain to effect any very considerable changes in the 
social condition nf the people of India. To make a people 
happy it is essential that they themselves should desire to be 



made happy, and should «o-operate with thuse who are working 
for their happiness. Xow the people of India, as it appears to 
me, ncitlier possess this desire nor are anxious to co-operate to 
this end. Every reform wliicli is obviously devised for their 
well-beinp they obstinately push aside, if it is likely in the 
least dejjree to disturb their manner of living, their most absurd 
prejudice, or their most puerile custom.' 

"Jf this is as true today as it was a hundred years ago — and 
it unquestionably is — w'e need not look far for the causes of 
any unrest that may exist today. If the inability of the Hindoo 
to appreciate cither the pei-sonality or the labors of those who, 
well or ill, administer India is as pronounced as ever, we who, 
to the best of our ability, have instilled in him the principles of 
patriotism, citizenship, and co-operation, and have, moreover, 
made him articulate, need take small blame to ourselves if our 
work still meets with little appreciation among those for whose 
Bole benefit it is designed." 

Oh I the blindness of men! Can you not see, you English, 
the key to this wonderful secret — the explanation of this great 
mystery — of this ''inability of the Hindoo to appreciate" all 
your wonderful and unselfish devotion. Search your ow'n 
hearts; and if you find not the answer there, turn to the pages 
of John ^forloy's Life of Gladstone, and there read those golden 
words of the great statesman who labored to give justice to 
Ireland: " Jt is Liberty alone that fits men for Liberty." 

''What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world, and 
lose his own soul?" You have given to the people of India 
all the material benefits — security of life and property, justice 
and education, freedom of speech and religion, honest adminis- 
tration, roads and bridges; — you have given him everything 
that can be asked of a government, have you not? All? Yes, 
everything; — except one thing ^ except that which is worth a 
thousand times more than all these put together, that without 
which all these are as nothing, the one vital thing that makes 
the difference between the slave and the man — EKKEDOM. 

T'an we do more for the Philippines than Great Britain has 
done for India? No; — and yes. We cannot hope to excel her 
in excellent :i(lmiiiistration; foi- we arc n democracy, while 
England is an imperial aristocracy, but at the end of a term of 
yr»ars wo may perhaps bring about something approaehing the 
efficiency and excellence of the Indian government, and with 
the same mournful result— a discontented population on the 
Terjre of a violent outbreak against its unselfish and well- 
mraninp oppressors. 

But we can, if we ehoosc, do more,- niu'^h more for the 



I'iiilijjpines than England has iluin.- I'ui- India; we can make our- 
aelf their loyal and devoted friend; opening our ports to 
reciprocal trade; oll'ering- every help in our power toward 
high ideals and high accomplishment; and giving that most 
efficient help possible — the setting of a great example. 
The way to th this, is to withdraw our army and establish 
independence; and the time to do it is not a century 
hence, nor a generation hence, not ten years nor five, but 
now, stralc/hiway, the nooner the better. Every moment 
of delay is fraught with injustice to the Philippines and danger 
to oui*selves. 

These are all the arguments that I have ever heard for keep- 
'mg the Philippines; and I have tried to show them as I be- 
lieve them to be, one and all in their essence weak and futile. 
But suppose for a moment they were valid, suppose that the 
Philippines can not take care of themselves, and that the Islands 
would be grabbed by some nation suffering from world-hunger; 
suppose our departure would result in such disorder that the 
woi-st of fates, that of the Kilkenny cats, would befall the Fili- 
pinos; suppose we grant that without our help the Islands will 
never be civilized or educated; suppose that untold wealth is 
cus if we keep them; suppose any and all of these, what then? 
It would still be our solemn duty to withdraw; for it still re- 
mains true what was said by Bishop Potter, I think, *'The real 
question is not what shall we do with the Philippines, but what 
will the Philippines do with us^" It is the danger to ourselves 
tliat is of most importance to us and to the world. 

This coiiutry is a democracy; — a fact that is not unfamiliar 
to most of us; but liow many there are who fail to appreciate 
the personal responsibilities that follow from that fact! How 
many who fail to undei"stand just why we are a democracy; 
and why, as a democracy, it is impossible for us to play at th« 
same time the part of an empire! AVe may be one or the 
other- — but we can't be both. ^^lany people there are who con- 
fuse the ideas of a republic and a democracy. Republics there 
have been before ours — the imperial republic of Kome, the 
aristocratic republic of Venice, the feudal republic of Switzer- 
land, the paternalistic republic <f the Netherlands; but ours is 
the first great DEMOCRACY, rhe first nation founded boldly 
upon the principle that all men are created equal — the political 
expression of the (i olden Rule. For that is what it comes to. 
Four grea'. systems of governrm nt before ours had been tried 
in the world and had failed to s^atisfy mankind. After many 
separate and crude experiments in government, and many 
failures, Rome brought all the known world under her imperial 



swav — in the first gjCRt organized svsteni of human society; 
and then to oppose the imperial idea there arose-Ohristiayn't;/. 
Imjicrialism rested upon one great basic principle, ^^Mi<ilit 
makts liiyfit" ; and the human relations at the base of that 
proposition are necessarily those of master and slave. But at 
the very moment of its complete triumph, at that dramatic 
instant ^vhen the form of the Roman government itself had 
been changed to suit the fundamental system, and Augustus 
Caesar had overthrown the republic and become Jmperotor ; at 
that moment was heard the low, grave voice of the Hebrew 
Prophet, " J^o unto otiters as ye would f/iat others s/touhl do 
unto yon..'' 

The death-knell of imperialism was given in that sentence. 
It became at once the touchstone by which all future forms of 
government must be tried; and no government has ever been 
able permanently to endure, because it could not stand that test. 
First it was the Imperialism of Rome that fell; then it was 
the Feudalism of Mediaeval Europe; then it was the Paternal- 
ism of the Stuarts or the Bourbons; then the Pseudo-Imperial- 
ism of Xapoleon Bonaparte. As one looks through history, one 
after the other the carefully built-up systems of tyranny 
crumble and fall; and upon their ruins, foolish man — failing 
to see the obvious rock upon which the wrecks have occurred, — 
refusing to recognize the great tniths of the religion he pro- 
fesses, tries again, and yet again, to make some new combma- 
tion that will stand, and peipetuate the ]iower of privilege. 
Imperialism, the rule of the strong over the weak — of master 
over the slave; Feudalism, the rule of overlord over vassals; 
Paternalism, the rule of a monarch claiming divine authority 
over subjects; Aristocracy, the rule of a social caste over the 
mob; now one and now the other; now a combination of these 
two and now of those; but always the refusal of the great mass 
of the people to be satisfied long with a system which gives 
special pri\nleges to the favored few; thus denying the vital 
principle of the rule of life laid down by Jesus. 

This, then, is the meaning of democracy; a system of 
poverniiunt based upon equal justice and equal privilege for all 
men; the political expression of the CJolden Riile. 

But wlien this new pystom of human government was out- 
lined in the groat l^eclaration, and later worked into concrete 
form in our Fedonil Constitution, our statesmen did not have 
rloar vision on one vital point. The slnvery compromises of the 
f 'onRtitution may have been politically wise as a temporary 
concession to human weakness; but they were a blot upon a 
noble inptrument and perpetuated in our democracy a relic of 



imperialism. Ami wc siirtored bitterly for the sin, of lack of 
faith in our own political ideal. 

Lincoln said: ''This nation cannot permanently endure half 
slave and half free." He was right, and upon analysis it ia 
easy to see why he was right. It was because imperialism and 
democracy are not only different systems of government, but 
opposing systems of government. One is based upon the theory 
that ''Might makes Kight," — the other denies that theory; the 
one assumes that one man is entitled to rule another man with- 
out his consent, the other says that all men are created equal 
and that governments exist only for the sake of the governed; 
the one denies the Golden Rule, the other affirms it. How can 
they exist together. As well may fire and water meet in 
harmony! 

But if this is true of the individual, it is also true of the 
nation. H our democracy could not exist in combination with 
one form of imperialism", neither can it exist \\\i\i the other. 
You can have an imperial republic, but you cannot have an 
imperial democracy. If slavery — the rule of one man over 
another— was a denial of the Golden Rule, a negation of 
democracy; so is the rule of one nation over another. And as 
Lincoln truly said that this nation could not endure half slave 
and half free, so we can truly say that thisNation cannot endure 
a democracy at home and an empire abroad, 

1 have been told that I cannot form a proper judgment of 
this Philippine matter because I have not visited the Islands. 
That we must go to Manila and see the splendid work that our 
Tafts, our Wrights, and our Forbeses have done, and are doing, 
before we can properly make up our minds; and that in the 
meantime we must accept the judgment of those who know 
from practical observation. 

But I have often found that those who are in the thick of 
things are often the poorest judges; and, moreover, there are 
some things that we can know perfectly well without seeing. 
The greatest and most important truths are those of which no 
ocular proof can bo had. We do not need to journey to Manila 
to understand the Ten Commandments. 

It is the same old story. Hosea Biglow says: 

"Parson Wilbur he calls all those argimunts lies; 

Sez they're nothin' on airth but jest A<'» /«"'» /""'• 
An' thet all this big talk of our destinies 

Fs half on it iun'rance, an' t'other half rum." 

Pai-son Wilbur was not quite right, unless he included a 
great many things under the name of "ignorance"; but it is 
certainly true that the Imperialists must always fall back upon 



t^ 

LlbKHKY Uh LtlNUKbbb 



John r. liubinson's argument, that "They didn't \ 013 717 912 
thin' down in Judee." 

We are trying out, in this country, a new system of govern- 
ment — Democnicij. We have not been long at it, as the 
world moves. We have had splendid results, and we have sur- 
rived at least one deadly peril. We have problems before ua 
worthy for any number of intellects to solve; but we cannot 
solve them, we cannot succeed, we can never retain our proper 
place in the world's history unless we keep our democracy pure 
and unsullied; keep our faith in the splendid results of in- 
dividual and national freedom ; unless we keep on believing 
that "It is liberty alone that fits men for liberty." And above 
all we must make our deeds square with our professions. We 
must yield to others the liberty we claim as our own God-give* 
right. 

Brethren of the faith, be not discouraged, our cause is neither 
dead nor dying; the way may be long, but the end is sure. 
Imperialism, like slavery, is the negation of democracy, and it 
will not endure. 

We must take our stand boldly upon the teachings of Jesus. 
If he was right in his enunciation of the Clolden lUile then all 
the apologists of tyranny and bloodshed are plainly and tragi- 
cally wrong. If they are right — if the denial of freedom can 
be compensated for by good roads, bv bridge^ and harbors and 
a!) the luxuries of efficient government — then is the message of 
Jesus a mistake, the Golden Kule an impracticable doctrine, 
and the Christian religion, that we profess, a hideous failure. 

But we know that is not true. We know that with Ilini, to 
w)iom a tliousand years are but as a day, there will and can be 
no permanent backward turning: That the hearts of men will 
be opened to the truth at last. Lowell — our truest poet of 
democracy, has sung: 

"Careless seems the great Avenger; history's pages but record 
One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old svtems and the 

Word; 
Truth forever on the .scaflFold, Wrong loitvcr on the throne, — 
Yet that scaflFold sways the future, and, boliind the dim un- 
known, 
Standeth (Jod within the shadow, keeping watch above his own. 
We see dimly in the Present wliat is small and wliat is great. 
Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate, 
But the .M^ul is still oracular; amid the market's din 
list the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within, — 
'They enslave their children's children who make compromi.se 
with sin.* " 



